I am going to have to return to this chapter for there is anunanswered question. The question is whether there is a room-temperature superconductor?

I left this chapter with the formula of Malus law inserted into theOhm's law. Where we have:

Ohm's law: V = i*R

and we replace resistance R with Malus law

Malus law: I' = I" cos^2 A

Replacing R: V = i (I')

Now we ask the question of polarization in room temperatureconditions. Do we actually have a 100%blockage of incoming light if the filters are perpendicular? And, dowe actually have 100% of the light go through if the filters have 0degree angle, i.e., aligned filters?

Now I have been checking around for the answers to those two questionsand it appears there is something called the extinction ratio whichWikipedia has some figures of 1:500 for Polaroid to about 1:10^6 forGlan-Taylor prism polarizers.

Now I also went and checked of the resistivity of conductors andnonconductors (Wikipedia) and they give silver at 1.59*10^-8 (in Ohms)and copper at 1.68*10^-8, sea water at 2*10^-1, drinking water at2*10^1, damp wood at 1*10^3, glass at 10^11, rubber at 10^13, sulfurat 10^15, teflon at 10^22.

So, what I am worried about is that the exponents do not match. Thatthe best room temperature conductors are 10^-8 whereas the polarizersare 10^-6.

So, I have a hunch that corrects the problem. The formula is good, butthe physics mechanism behind superconductivity is not yet spelled outin details.

My hunch is that the Faraday law with the magnetic monopoles has atemperature term in the magnetic current density. We all know thatmagnets lose magnetism with heat added to the scene. And the MaxwellEquations should speak of heat added to magnetism. The unsymmetricalMaxwell Equations do not have temperature or heat involved. TheSymmetrical Maxwell Equations with the added term of the magneticcurrent density and the added nonzero term in Gauss's law of magnetismshould have a temperature component.

Now, here is the beauty of the solution.

Instead of having a electric current induced by a moving bar magnet ofthe old-faraday-law, we have a tiny electric current induced by thelowering of the temperature to the **transition temperature**. So thelowering of the temperature of the environment surrounding thesuperconduction objects creates a lines of force that gives rise to atiny electric current, without ever applying an outside electricpotential or current to the superconduction-objects.

What I am saying is that the mere fact of having a tiny environment ofsuperconduction with its far lower temperature than the largersurrounding environment creates a moving bar magnet itself and createsa tiny electric current in the objects under superconduction.

So here, I need a new experiment of exquisite and delicate precisionto see if we take lead and cool it to 4 degrees Kelvin and see ifthere is a tiny electric current without ever applying any electriccurrent.

If my hunch is correct, there is a tiny electric current. So that whenyou apply a external outside electric current, we see no resistance.

If true, then superconductivity is the fact that a transitioningtemperature of small environment from larger environment creates linesof force, a magnetic field that acts as the moving bar magnet inFaraday's law and causes a tiny electric current to appear in thesmall environment. And if that turns out true, then of course there isno room temperature superconductor ever. And the highest temperaturesuperconductor would depend on the temperature differential.

In this experiment we have the same equipment with lead and othersuperconductors and we lower the temperature but we do not fasten anoutside current. What we do is measure for an induced current in theclosed loop due to a temperature gradient of the experiment with theoutside environment. The current is tiny, but is due to thetemperature gradient.

--

Google's archives are top-heavy in hate-spew from search-engine-bombing. Only Drexel's Math Forum has done a excellent, simple andfair archiving of AP posts for the past 15 years as seen here: